class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Disorder, Social Control, and Opportunity ] .subtitle[ ## Advancing research on communities and crime ] .author[ ### Charles C. Lanfear
withRoss L. Matsueda & Lindsey R. Beach ] --- class: inverse, cct # Community Crime Theories --- # Broken Windows [Wilson & Kelling (1982)](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/) describe a system where community disorder (1) increases crime by signalling low social control to offenders and (2) decreases actual social control by reducing willingness to use public spaces. -- .pull-left-60[  ] .pull-right-40[ * A: Disorder signals low guardianship which increases offending. * B, E: Disorder and crime constrain social relations and impede control. * C, D: Social control inhibits both disorder and crime. ] .centernote[ *A theoretical basis for order maintenance policing* ] --- ## Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008) Keizer et al. used disorder manipulations and recorded norm violation with field experiments in Groningen, the Netherlands. Multiple types of disorder consistently increased in norm violation. -- .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Powerful causal effect of disorder on multiple forms of norm violation (A). * High **internal validity** from experimental design. * Single sites in one city. ] .centernote[ *Seemingly strong evidence for the direct path* ] --- # Collective Efficacy [Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1086/210356) contend that disorder and crime are both manifestations of low collective efficacy—the community's capacity for informal social control. -- .pull-left-60[  ] .pull-right-40[ * A: Disorder has no direct impact on crime. * C, D: Disorder and crime are products of low collective efficacy—social control—which is exogenous (B, E). ] .centernote[ *A, B, and E represent testable constraints on Broken Windows.* ] --- ## Sampson & Raudenbush (1999) Simultaneous equations of crime, disorder, and collective efficacy in Chicago neighborhoods, using survey-measured collective efficacy and objectives measure of disorder: Video of block faces coded by researchers. -- .pull-left[  .small[<sup>*</sup> Effect found only for robbery.] ] .pull-right[ * Effect of neighborhood disorder on crime (A) absent conditional on collective efficacy (B,D) * Control for crime impact on collective efficacy (E), but assume no disorder feedback on collective efficacy (absent B). * High **external validity**: *Real* disorder and crime. ] .centernote[ *Evidence against broken windows in real settings, but vulnerable to spuriousness* ] --- # Today's Talk Addressing questions raised by these (and related) studies Bringing methodological concerns to the forefront Show some key experimental results Take a glimpse of related work Chart a path forward for communities research --- class: inverse # Causality and Counterfactuals .image-75[  ] --- # Potential Outcomes Causal effects are differences between *counterfactuals* or *potential outcomes* .image-75[  ] -- Fundamental problem: We only ever see *one* outcome -- .centernote[ *With some assumptions, we can estimate the treatment effect* ] --- # Ignorability We can compare different units if their differences are *ignorable* .image-75[  ] --- count: false # Ignorability We can compare different units if their differences are *ignorable* .image-75[  ] -- We do this with *randomization* or *conditioning on variables* * Most prefer randomization because communities are **complex** -- .centernote[*But ignorability is not the only assumption*] --- # SUTVA<sup>1</sup> .pull-left[ .image-87[  ] ] .pull-right[ ### Consistency * Only one treatment at each measured level * No *versions* of treatment * No *compound treatments* * Assignment mechanism for treatment doesn't affect outcomes ] .footnote[[1] Stable Unit Value Treatment Assumption] --- # SUTVA<sup>1</sup> .pull-left[ .image-87[  ] ] .pull-right[ ### Consistency * Only one treatment at each measured level * No *versions* of treatment * No *compound treatments* * Assignment mechanism for treatment doesn't affect outcomes ### No interference * Unit outcomes are not affected by the treatment assignment of other units ] .footnote[[1] Stable Unit Value Treatment Assumption] --- # Consistency A mismeasurement: Different types of treatment treated as the same .image-75[  ] Commonly violated in field experiments *and* observational research * e.g., scales combining different treatments<sup>1</sup> .footnote[[1] see [VanderWeele (2022)](https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001434)] --- ## Consistency: Asymmetry Occurs when treating and removing treatment has different effects .image-75[  ] -- Nearly all studies assume symmetry—but reality is often asymmetric<sup>1</sup> * *Pulling the knife out doesn't heal the wound* * Control conditions may *alter existing states* .footnote[[1] See Lieberson (1985) *Making it Count*] --- # Interference Interference means some units' treatments influence other units' outcomes .image-75[  ] -- These spillovers are common in the real world: What happens nearby matters --- # Interference Interference gets complicated quickly .image-75[  ] -- Can often be ruled out in experiments * But real processes have spillovers * Large-scale shocks or policies have unanticipated effects<sup>1</sup> .footnote[[1] See [Nagin & Sampson (2019)](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024838)] --- class: inverse, sncp # The Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Project --- ## The Experiments A series of large-scale field experiments embedded in Seattle neighborhoods with rich ecological survey data * Balance the strengths and weaknesses of experimental and observational methods -- ‍1. **Mailbox Experiment** * Effect of disorder on crime / prosocial behavior (replicate Keizer) * Association between collective efficacy and crime / prosocial behavior -- ‍2. Lost Letter ‍3. Littering Intervention ‍4. Litter Clean-Up --- <br> <br>  --- # Number of Trials <!-- --> --- <!-- --> --- class: inverse # The Mailbox Experiment --- # Mailbox: Method .pull-left[ .image-75[  ] ] * A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter. --- count: false # Mailbox: Method .pull-left[ .image-75[  ] ] * A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter. * Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder. -- * Researchers record whether participants mail, steal, or ignore the envelope.<sup>1</sup> .footnote[[1] Perceived gender, age, and group size of participants were also recorded to adjust for compositional differences between conditions] -- * Recorded if disorder was present *prior to trial* -- * We conducted 368 trials with 3,481 participants in 20 Seattle census tracts. --- # Mailbox: Model Objective: Causal test of direct effect of disorder on crime (A). <br> <br> .image-63[  ] --- # Mailbox: Model Our Experiment: Causal tests of direct effects of disorder on crime and prosocial behavior—and associations with collective efficacy <br> .image-75[  ] --- # Mailbox: Results <table style="width:70%"> <tr> <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Mailbox: Participant Actions</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Condition</th> <th>Walk-By</th> <th>Mail</th> <th>Theft</th> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Control</td> <td>1496</td> <td>176</td> <td>28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>88.0%</td> <td><strong>10.4%</strong></td> <td><strong>1.6%</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td> <td>1617</td> <td>136</td> <td>28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>90.8%</td> <td><strong>7.6%</strong></td> <td><strong>1.6%</strong></td> </tr> </table> Key Findings: * Disorder has **no impact on theft**—Keizer et al. (2008) fails replication<sup>1</sup> .footnote[[1] No significant positive relationship in *any* of the 20 locations] -- * Disorder **reduces mailing** -- * Thefts higher where **prior disorder** is present, but no difference in treatment effect -- * Collective efficacy predicts less **theft** and **prior disorder** --- TRANSITION --- class: inverse # Recent Projects * [Lanfear (2022) "Collective efficacy and the built environment" *Criminology*](https://github.com/clanfear/ccl_cv/raw/master/articles/Collective%20Efficacy%20and%20the%20Built%20Environment.pdf) * Urban political economy, social control, and situational opportunity * Modeling long-term, large-scale, endogenous processes -- * Lanfear & Matsueda (Ongoing) "A micro theory of crime opportunities: Symbolic interaction among motivated offenders, suitable targets, and capable guardians" * A micro-foundation for situational opportunity and informal control theories -- * Lanfear (Ongoing) "Collective efficacy and formal social control" * The relationship between norms of intervention and police effectiveness --- # Moving Forward ## Survey Research Strengths of survey but weaknesses: endogeneity; answer with experiments, but some things difficult to manipulate and external validity an issue; some things not identifiable but not manipulable either---CE -> built environment Pitch a 3rd community survey wave in Chicago Pitch CE interventions ## Embedded Experiments ## New Data Sources * Human mobility data * Space-time budgets ## Multilevel Theory